Anarchy is the state from which whoever wants power the most attains it. There will always be people who want power over you. The problem now is those people are the US government, whereas the US government is supposed to protect its people from them.

But I've always found anarchist claims to be rather naive. You want a stateless society? What is to stop Warlord Kemp and his dozen armed and armored men from taxing you monthly? Any defense network you set up will end up governing defense, making it a limited government. And Warlord Kemp has the advantage of being equipped with the things he steals and his men are motivated by greed for the the things they steal. So you need a strong defense network. Government is born! Or you can not defend yourselves. And Wardlord Kemp becomes your governor. Government results either way.

Wait. Government emerges as a need for organized wealth distribution emerges? I disagree. While modern governments do that, I strongly disagree that that was the intended purpose of humanity's first governments.

I have the knowledge to make nukes, though not the resources. Mosty you must enrich, the rest is easier...

I would make nukes, about a dozen, for self defense and for offensive actions if the world went anarchist.

I would set up a new government, with limitations and start expanding it.

Minus nukes I still win. My band of merry men and me decide when to strike. To cause pain and humiliation until a government is formed to counter us. We negotiate with that government a peace treaty.

We strike other communities. More peace, and my band grows with the booty we take. Eventually I take over a few governments and enforce my will through fear.

Man will always need government if only to counter other mens governments.

Then if you think 90% of a market is acceptable, let me own 90% of the internet servers. I will censor all Libertarians forever on my 90%.

Sorry my might trumps your right, you must now try to consider a government which most represents stability than an anarchist society.

Apologies to Khaz Modan for hijacking his thread.

I argue for a stateless society, but not a society without governance. I argue for a government of consent, of self-governance, not one of compulsion and coercion. Anarchy is oft confused with anomie, which is the typical vision of chaos, lawlessness, and social malaise that people identify with anarchy. In this respect, I suppose I should follow LeFevre's footsteps in calling myself an autarchist just to get away from those common misconceptions, but I digress.

V.Kemp, if roving warlord gangs were ever to become a problem I don't see why the law-abiding among us would not be able to rally some sort of armed response and resistance; whether that be by forming a militia or hiring a defense company. Surely the rich would pay heavily for the protection of their property and business interests. Moreover, war is very expensive and always favors the defenders (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, anybody?), it is much more prosperous to engage in commerce and trade rather than to engage in extortion and murder. War senselessly destroys and squanders many resources. There is very little economic incentive for it.

@Justinian I

I am aware of Robert Nozick's book and I admit a passing familiarity with his position, but I don't claim to adhere to it (or any permutation thereof), nor do I claim to know what form law and order would take in the kind of society I propose. I simply believe that the market will find a way. Protection agencies, possibly as an extension of the insurance industry, are but one theory. I admit that I simply do not know how many things we take for granted would work, but I do not have to know. I /do/ know that as a general rule the government provides nearly all of these services inefficiently and at an exorbitant cost. The Post Office is a perfect example of the failure of government, whereas the cost of postage is constantly on the rise, private delivery companies are becoming cheaper and cheaper. The market has a consistent trend of doing things better and cheaper, just as government has a consistent trend of expansion and debt with little or no input on its success or failure (thanks to a lack of profit-or-loss mechanism).

Your examples of defenders are all groups supported by bigger powers. The North Vietnamese didn't stand a chance. China and Russia, however, made things problematic.

Take your example of Afghanistan. Perfect illustration of my point. That the Taliban had power of such an undeveloped region--They're nothing but warlords who imposed control because they could. Though many surely would have loved to form a militia or hire a defense company to protect them from the Taliban, it didn't actually happen in the real world. The rich in Afghanistan were the oppressors, not some benevolent group as you propose who would be willing to pay heavily for protection of their property and business assets. Such protection is a business asset which can be used to exert control over others. And was in your fine example of Afghanistan.

You presume that people would do fine governing themselves. And I agree that people ought generally be left alone and allowed to govern themselves. But you include no real mechanism to protect people from those who would subjugate them. You speak of militia or a defense company. But in reality to maintain such an armed guard 24/7/365.25 to protect from men with vehicles and guns showing up, taking your stuff, and leaving requires support. And that support means some form of taxation. People have to feed and clothe and shelter and incentivize their protectors. And they need to have a say in directing their actions, lest they fail in their tasks or abuse their authority. And there you've just described a government. Call it what you want, if it has final authority to uphold (or impose) law and order, it's a government. You can call it the American Security Company, but if it acts like a government and has the power and functions of a government, it's probably a government.

That was my starting point in getting into all of this in this thread. While I point out that men inevitably form governments (or are subjugated by others who have, thus giving them a governing authority nonetheless), having a governing document that specifies and limits the powers of said government at the time it is formed is paramount to defense from tyranny.

If a government is given whatever power it determines it requires to accomplish whatever it determines it wants to accomplish, this is tyranny--regardless of how long it takes said government to realize the full potential evil it can do upon its people. Tyranny isn't necessarily preceded by a coup d'

@Acolyte

"if roving warlord gangs were ever to become a problem I don't see why the law-abiding among us would not be able to rally some sort of armed response"

"nor do I claim to know what form law and order would take in the kind of society I propose. I simply believe that the market will find a way."

I would like to agree with you, Acolyte, but experience within and observation of our current global social-political-economic situation simply won't allow me to.

We do already have warlord gangs running rampant pillaging national coffers, enslaving entire labor markets, and fixing / manipulating / subverting free-market capitalism all around the world.  They are our beloved cartels, oligopolies, monopolies, and state-run-enterprises.   They derive their control over humanity by virtue of being positioned to manipulate, change, or outright break the law.  The majority of 'law-abiding citizens' you say who would form resistance against such oppression and the so called free market forces you suggest would 'find a way' to deal with such warlord gangs, simply, in reality, do not.

> Einstein wrote:

> That's the first flaw in his assumptions.

The second is disasters and apathy.

Einstein,

I'm confused by your response.  To whom are you referring and to whom are you addressing?

mooch

@V.Kemp

The problem remains, who will fund the aggressors? Who is going to invest in war when it has very little return? So long as the "American Security Company" does not impose its authority on those who are not willingly paying for their protection, I can find no evil.

xeno syndicated: "I think Acolyte would counter my post by saying that the reason why the free-market and public resistance is ineffectual is due to the reliance on government to properly (in other words minimally) regulate the free market / foster the public good; that if we weren't accustomed to relying on government to do it for us, we'd do it ourselves."

Sort of. I would cite government intervention as the primary reason the market has failed to recover itself in those sectors.

@Einstein

Sorry if I do not respond timely to every post. I'm very rarely left with a free moment anymore between my job, being married, being a father, and the fact that it was Memorial Day weekend.

>>The problem remains, who will fund the aggressors? Who is going to invest in war when it has very little return?<<

There have been aggressors since before there have been currencies. There are aggressors today all over the globe. Subjugation of productive peoples always has return. It always will. I swear you're just trolling me with these questions.

>>So long as the "American Security Company" does not impose its authority on those who are not willingly paying for their protection, I can find no evil.<<

The point being that of course they will. And there is no mechanism for defense from said tyranny. They may overreach their voluntary authority in order to create a buffer zone. They may overreach it in the interests of those in charge (of the security agency or those directing them) who have the ability to abuse it. Humanity has certainly proven that people will abuse what they can to benefit themselves.